The Washington critic., 1887-10-07
LAND TAN AND NO TAN.

In his speech at Canandaigua, N. Y,
the other day, in illustration of his pe-
culiar theories about land taxation, Mr..
Henry George said that when he was
coming to the meeting he had seen a
vacant corner lot, which he was told
was worth $4,000, and on the other
corner was a handsome building. The
vacant lot was taxed little, but the
building was heavily taxed He then
continued
"rhat Is, the man who was cnterprising and
had benefited Canandsigua was punished by
being heavily fined with big tax, while the
nnenterprlsng citizen was rewarded. II a
righteous system of taxation prevailed, the
owner OF the land would be compelled to put
a building on II or improve II in some way.
The dogs in the manger who take land and
do not use 1t should be compelled to pay
heav7 fine.'
Quoting further from the proceed
ings of the meeting;
ono OF his hearers said MI George, how
would you tax poor man who had put up a
shanty and a man who had built $4,000
house on the next lott
Mr.. George replied: II would tax them the
game amount Why should the rich man be
lined for putting up handsome housef"
There are men who take to this sort
of sophistry with relish. Mr.. George
has an idea that there are enough peo-
pie of this kind In New York to elect
him Secretary of State, Yet 1t Is In
credible that more than a very small
minority of the citizens of the Empire
State are so bereft of their reasoning
powers as to be hoodwinked by q
fallacy that Is not only fallacy, but an
injustice.
Does 1t never occur to Mr.. George
that the man who owns the vacant corr
ner lot may be what is called Gland
poor"-neither able to sell nor build?
Does 1t never occur to him that this lot,
improbable as 1t may be to the owner
or his neighbors, may represent the
savings of years of hard work, and that
whether 1t is saleable or not he has the
right to hold on to 1t for conversion
into money whenever the proper op-
portunity offers or reserve 1t as leg
acy to his children?
Does 1t never occur to Mr.. George
furthermore that the man who put up
the handsome building may have In.
vested means for which he never did O
days work In his life, and that his en-.
terprise simply consisted Of desire to
make ten, fifteen or twenty-five per
cent. on his capital through his rentals :?
Why should the landlord be exempt
from taxation or punishment" be.
cause of the superior financial advant.
ages he enjoys, and the comparatively
impecunious owner of the vacant lot
be all the more heavily taxed or
"punished" for his inability or even
unwillingness to put up house?
Again, what justice or sense would
there be In imposing upon the man who
was only able to erect shanty on his
lot the same tax that is imposed upon
the man who built the hundred thou
Hand dollar palace?
AS in the other case, the one who
owns the unimproved lot may have
done the best he could with the prop
erty that he had honestly earned, while
the gentleman who beautiAed his place
may have done so on an inherited for
tune and for merely merCenary motives
Mr.. George seems also to forget tha
Il is as much mans right to hold towr
lots for a rise, as it is to build to sell
or 10 deal In stocks or bonds and tht
one class of property is just as legiti
mate, just as worthy Of a laudable am
bition to accumulate, as the other. L
there is any good reason why the op'
should be compelled TO furnish thu
Government with its revenues through
the tax.gatherer, while the other, fat
teniDg upon the money Of his tenants